The very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision. -Theodore Hesburgh. This necessary essence of leadership is a vision, not a mirage, but a realistic goal of gaining a successful Foreign policy. Economic sanctions are effective and necessary. They are a moral and accepted method of achieving Foreign Policy goals. Now to define some of the words of the resolution: Economic sanctions: Penalty relating to commercial prosperity for non-compliance Achieve: to get or attain by effort Foreign policy: the policy of a sovereign state in its interaction with other sovereign states Goals: result or achievement toward which effort is directed Economic sanctions have been and are accepted as a legitimate method of foreign policy.
According to Jonathan Eaton, sanctions have long been important in international relations and us law prescribes the use of sanctions in circumstances related to, for example, national security, human rights, intellectual property, and international trade. Ec4enomic sanctions are currently a reality of international relations; getting rid of them would be as ineffective as outlawing war. Economic sanctions have always been an American Foreign Policy weapon. Even the American colonies imposed sanctions on Britain in response to the stamp and townsend acts. Sanctions have been vital weapons for Foreign policy for more than 200 years. I must agree with U.S. representative Ros Lehtinen when he says, sanctions made sense form a moral, ethical, political and commercial sense.
The Essay on Economic International Legal Considerations
This chapter covers a wide range of regulations, procedures, and practices that fall into three categories: regulations that exporters must follow to comply with U.S. law; procedures that exporters should follow to ensure a successful export transaction; and programs and certain tax procedures that open new markets or provide financial benefits to exporters. The Export Administration Regulations ...
Sanctions are a step taken to avoid war, and this I believe can be a given that sanctions are much less severe than war. With this in mind the price per American for U.S. sanctions is $3.77- a little more that the cost of a Big Mac and Fies. For a moral effective method of achieving Foreign Policy goals it is also very cost effective. According to the Journal of Peace Research, sanctions do not all fit the category of hurting only the general public but in theory political authorities can create sanctions that affect the wrongdoers and do not unduly and adversely affect the civilian population, or weaken opposition movements. Smart sanctions better target the wealthy and powerful to apply coercive pressure while sparing vulnerable populations, thus achieving a greater political gain with as little as possible civilian pain.
The harms of war far outweigh the harms of sanctions. Sanctions provide a middle ground between diplomacy and military action. Sanctions also prove to be a moral effective means to achieving Foreign Policy goals when Military intervention is too costly and diplomacy is ineffective Thomas Jefferson contended that in Foreign affairs three alternatives alone are to be chosen from. 1.) embargo 2.) War 3.) Submission and tribute. Jeffersons ideas are still held in truth. There are still three tolls in Foreign policy Diplomacy, sanctions, and war.
If sanctions are allowed to be considered immoral there would be no means to dealing with terrorists, proliferaters, and genocidal dictators. The only options left would be empty talk, or sending in the marines. Without sanctions, the United States would be forced to a state of continual war. Kenneth R. Himes states that sanctions have a deterrent value since even if they do not reverse the situations that occasioned them there imposition may persuade other countries form joining in wrongful behavior or dissuade the wrong doer form further harmful actions.
